Hillary: DNC Should Seat The Michigan And Florida Delegates
Hillary Clinton has now issued a statement about the DNC's action in stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates due to their rogue primaries. Hillary has called for the delegates from both states to be fully seated.
On a campaign conference call with reporters, one Clinton adviser said that the candidate is really just listening to the voters of those states, and wants them to be heard. "I think that what the senator said is that she's hearing from a lot of people that they'd like to have their voices heard." He then added that he would like to hear from the other candidates where they stand on the issue.
A cynic would note that Hillary was the only major candidate whose name was on the ballot in Michigan, running against "uncommitted," and that she is also favored to win Florida after none of the candidates campaigned in the state.
So what would the actual effect of the Michigan/Florida delegates be? If the nomination is a settled question regardless, then it really doesn't matter, and either Hillary or Obama would ultimately have them seated. But if we were looking at a brokered convention, you'd see the Hillary camp fighting for a floor vote to seat those delegates, and use the issue as a public relations weapon — much like how the brokered conventions of old would have floor fights over the seating of disputed delegations.
Comments (239)
NJPolitico84 wrote on January 25, 2008 4:08 PM:OF COURSE...because she is know realizing that this race WILL NOT be over on February 5th and will drag on...she must be afraid that her delegate totals coming out of February 5th might not be as large as previously expected...
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 25, 2008 4:09 PM:Good for her. None of the candidates ought to have made their absurd pledges. Of course, FL and MI ought not to have skipped ahead of Feb 5, but this is a misdemenor, not a hanging crime. I think that the Republicans got it right, cutting these states' delegations in half, but not stripping them of all delegates entirely.
Mike wrote on January 25, 2008 4:09 PM:More evidence that the Clintons will say and do anything to get elected.
This is a slap in the face of Howard Dean and the Democratic Party.
CT Voter wrote on January 25, 2008 4:10 PM:Hillary, today, in her own words (h/t Swampland):
"I don't need to go back and live in the White House. I've done that."
That said, it is 1) awfully convenient for her if they are seated and 2) probably beside the point. I hate to say it, but I am coming around to the view that Clinton will likely be our nominee with or without MI & FL, so why not be gracious and seat the Floridians and Michiganders.
NamelessFaceless wrote on January 25, 2008 4:11 PM:Good to have the response:
No one is more disappointed that Florida Democrats will have no role in selecting delegates for the nomination of the party’s standard bearer than Senator Obama.
When Senator Clinton was campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, she made it clear that states like Michigan and Florida that wouldn’t produce any delegates, ‘don’t count for anything.’ Now that Senator Clinton’s worried about losing the first Southern primary, she’s using Florida for her own political gain by trying to assign meaning to a contest that awards zero delegates and where no campaigning has occurred. Senator Clinton’s own campaign has repeatedly said that this is a ‘contest for delegates’, and Florida is a contest that offers zero. Whether it is Barack Obama’s record, her position on Social Security, or even the meaning of the Florida Primary, it seems like Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to win an election. When he is the nominee, Barack Obama will campaign vigorously in Florida and Michigan to put them in the Democratic column in 2008.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/CGxpn
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 25, 2008 4:12 PM:Not that it matters, mind you - she will lose both states in the GE even if she agrees to seat their delegates.
Too be expected wrote on January 25, 2008 4:15 PM:Both campaigns have known this was coming for a long time. The DNC has basically said that it would be up to the nominee to decide what to do regarding the delegates. Its the most poorly kept secret in Washington that most Dems have long assumed they would get seated eventually. HRC is just pressing this button now because it will help her in Florida and, more importantly, maybe get the media to give the Florida Dem race more play.
Obviously she wouldn't be saying this right now if she didn't have an advantage among these delegates, but the idea that this is a shock to anybody in either campaign or that HRC is undermining Howard Dean and the DNC is a joke.
wwjb wrote on January 25, 2008 4:16 PM:Way to try to change the rules of the game halfway through, again (see: voter disenfranchisement in NV). Oh, wait, wasn't it just earlier this week when you were attacking Obama for having a national cable ad that couldn't avoid airing in Florida? And now just a few days later you are arguing that we should give them their votes back (you know, now that you ran unopposed in Michigan, and since no one has been able to touch Florida to try to steer them away from you as the "default" candidate). Riiigghhhttt.
Another example of the Clintons shitting all over the Democratic party to get ahead. Great job!
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 4:17 PM:This is not about the voters of Michigan or Florida. It's about one person and one person only.
lombard wrote on January 25, 2008 4:17 PM:Greg DeLassus wrote on January 25, 2008 4:12 PM:
"Not that it matters, mind you - she will lose both states in the GE even if she agrees to seat their delegates."
Care to make a friendly wager on that statement? She only has to win one of the two. I'll take those odds.
Why would the dems want to stick it to two of the largest states in the nation? They are mad, because Michigan and Florida wanted to be heard rather than lumped in with a lot of other states. For the life of me I will never understand how Iowa gets so much clout in picking our niminee. If Florida and Michigan dems stay home in the general, because they feel that they don't matter, it will only hurt the democratic nominee. Why supress your votes in two of the largest states?
Jim wrote on January 25, 2008 4:20 PM:I can understand Florida, since everyone is on the ballot, but Michigan, where she's the only one? Come on! How tacky/underhanded/Rovian/Clintonesque can you get? Typical and completely unsurprising. You people really want 4 or 8 years of this?
coyote wrote on January 25, 2008 4:22 PM:I hate to say it, but I am coming around to the view that Clinton will likely be our nominee with or without MI & FL, so why not be gracious and seat the Floridians and Michiganders.
I hate to say it, but I'm coming around to the view that the Patriots will likely win the Super Bowl, so why shouldn't the Giants be gracious and spot them a couple of touchdowns.
jbentley wrote on January 25, 2008 4:22 PM:This is like an NFL team arguing after going 4-0 in the pre-season that now preseason games should count, or in the case of Michigan, an intra-squad scrimmage.
NoVa Dem wrote on January 25, 2008 4:23 PM:The Clintons may not know what the meaning of "is" is, but they sure define the word CHUTZPAH!
blackstar wrote on January 25, 2008 4:24 PM:"the rules aren't working to my advantage.... i'll just change them."
who does that sound like?
Mike wrote on January 25, 2008 4:25 PM:Oh, she is definitely undermining Howard Dean and the DNC.
People going around saying that these delegates are going to be seated eventually don't know what they're talking about. That's only true in the event that the nomination is already decided, which is what everyone assumed until recently.
But with the race as close as it is right now and the possibility of a brokered convention out there, then that goes out the window.
Hillary has now put the entire Democratic Party in the position of looking like the bad guys just so she can get elected. If she gets her way, this nomination might be decided by states that the candidates pledged not to campaign in. How does that make sense?
CT Voter wrote on January 25, 2008 4:25 PM:For people who are mildly following this primary season (and that pretty much rules out everyone posting here... :) ), isn't this going to go down somewhat badly?
The candidates agreed to not campaign in Florida, Obama and Edwards pull their names from the Michigan ballot, but Clinton doesn't, and now Clinton wants to make sure those Michigan delegates count?
I agree with whoever said above that this isn't surprising, and was going to happen at some point, but this just smacks of Clinton appearing to try and change the rules to her advantage.
How do you think this is going to be described in MSM? "Clinton, in a turn-around, now wants delegates from Michigan to count. Clinton was the only candidate on the ballot in Michigan."
Even a five year old might grasp that this seems pretty low.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 25, 2008 4:26 PM:If Florida and Michigan dems stay home in the general, because they feel that they don't matter, it will only hurt the democratic nominee. Why supress your votes in two of the largest states?
Sure, sure, a fine argument, that. That said, in Clinton's case it really makes no difference. Even if she seats their delegates, she will not carry either state.
Care to make a friendly wager on that statement? She only has to win one of the two. I'll take those odds.
No thanks; it is not that I am chicken or anything. I just think that it would be tacky of me to bet against my own candidate. If she takes the nomination, I will want her to win, so I do not want to have a stake (however small) in her losing.
lm wrote on January 25, 2008 4:27 PM:it is important that Howard Dean issue a response to this. His credibility is at stake. Clinton Inc does not run the Democratic Party.
savvy wrote on January 25, 2008 4:29 PM:Why in the world should the DNC respect ANY request from Hillary?
Hillary did not respect the rules of the DNC, which is why her and Dodd's name remained on the ballot.
The other candidates DID respect the DNC names and asked to have their names removed.
Those candidates should not be penalized for following DNC rules.
The DNC needs to respect their own rules, ignore and deny Hillary's request.
Those delegates should not be seated nor should they be in play at the DNC.
When states do not follow the rules of the DNC they should not be rewarded and most certainly individuals who are rule breakers should be totally denied and ignored.
Bret wrote on January 25, 2008 4:30 PM:Clinton was not the only name on the Michigan ballot. It is not her fault that Edwards and Obama pulled their names off. They did however ask their supporters to vote uncommitted to try and embarrass Hillary. She still got over 50% of the vote. Does anyone think that she would not have won even if their names had been on the ballot? 80% of the blacks voted uncommitted for Obama. She still won. So please stop acting like she won by default. She will win Florida too. What will be the excuse then?
Genghis wrote on January 25, 2008 4:33 PM:Good for her. None of the candidates ought to have made their absurd pledges. Of course, FL and MI ought not to have skipped ahead of Feb 5, but this is a misdemenor, not a hanging crime.
Greg D, I totally disagree with you on this one. It would have been one thing if all the candidates had skipped FL and MI, but whether they should have or not, it was quite reasonable for them to follow the DNC's orders, and since they did so, it would be completely unfair for the DNC to reverse it's decision and count the votes now.
I'm happy to count FL and MI if the votes don't end up mattering, but if the DNC were to reverse its decision, and if that were to give Hillary the win, I think it would tear apart the Democratic party, causing a huge rift with Obama supporters who would justifiably feel that Obama was cheated out of the nomination. I expect that there could be lawsuits as well.
As such, Clinton's new position recklessly endangers the unity of the party. I would also note that I might feel a little more empathy if she had been pushing this position from the get go. But now? With MI past and no one else on the ballot there, and FL almost upon us with her way ahead in the polls there? This is just more self-serving politics from Clinton.
I give her enough credit to believe that she wouldn't ultimately try to force the issue if it were to threaten a rift at the convention. I suspect that she's just posturing to get more votes at the FL primary. The timing is just too convenient. But it's still self-serving politics.
Noboy wrote on January 25, 2008 4:33 PM:Obama really IS an idiot.
All he had to say was that it should be decided at the convention, which it will be, period.
But no, instead the Fool prefers to alienate a large swath of voters to no real purpose.
Have the Obamaniacs forgotten that word "disenfranchise" that they so stupidly slung about in Nevada?
Smart move! Real smart move!
OMG!
There's politics in politics.
"Oh, she is definitely undermining Howard Dean and the DNC.
People going around saying that these delegates are going to be seated eventually don't know what they're talking about. That's only true in the event that the nomination is already decided, which is what everyone assumed until recently."
The move is obvious manipulation, but its not undermining the DNC. They made it clear that this would be voted on at the convention by the already pledged delegates. Hillary is saying she will ask her delegates to vote one way. Would you expect her not to ask them to vote that way if we get to a brokered convention?
Its sheer calculation that she's coming out with this now, but she is just choosing the obvious option that the DNC themselves put in front of her.
LynnDee wrote on January 25, 2008 4:36 PM:The woman is shameless. Utterly shameless.
sue wrote on January 25, 2008 4:38 PM:This is a joke. The only reason Clinton did as well as she did in MI is because no one campaigned against her, so her lead there was built purely from name recognition.
Same thing with FL, the polls are based purely off name recognition, since no one has campaigned there, so she didn't really "WIN" MI, and the FL win will be based on nothing. Same thing with the Super Tuesday states, the ones where Hillary has big leads are those where no campaigning has been done and the candidates have just begun to air campaign ads, so the race will tighten in those states as well.
If the nomination isn't decided by the convention, why the heck would Obama NOT fight the seating of the MI and FL delegates, since he didn't campaign there and Hillary wouldn't have beaten him by big margins if he did (she might have won, but not by 20 points), so she wouldn't have gotten as many delegates as she would with no competition.
LynnDee wrote on January 25, 2008 4:38 PM:I meant to say:
I am stupid! Utterly stupid!
THIS kind of cr@p is EXCACTLY why the Clintons need to be kept out of office. I'd say I can't believe the cynical, manipulative brazeness of this bs, but its exactly what I've come to expect.
All those who say people against the Clintons will come around and vote dem in the GE are wrong. I won't. And I'm a democrat.
Lizmom23 wrote on January 25, 2008 4:39 PM:If Hillary Clinton was already the nominee, this would not be a big deal as it is probably true that in the end, a clear nominee could have lobbied to have both MI and FL delegates seated. And this scnereio might be what Hillary wants us to think is the case....
However, she is NOT the nominee and this is a close race. In that light, her statement reflects very badly on her and reinforces her image as a politician that only wants to win - at any costs.
Genghis wrote on January 25, 2008 4:39 PM:She still got over 50% of the vote. Does anyone think that she would not have won even if their names had been on the ballot?
Bret, the primaries are not like the general elections. Delegates are apportioned proportionately. So Hillary would get 50+% of MI, and Obama would get 0%. There are a hell of a lot of delegates that he would have received by keeping his name on the ballot even if Clinton would have won the majority.
He was following DNC instructions by taking his name of the ballot, so it's absurd to penalize him by giving Clinton MI delegates that wasn't even able to compete for.
Let's say it again: She will say or do anything to win.
She agreed with the decision that their delegates shouldn't count. Now, well...
And at the end of the day, it would be WRONG to seat these delegates at the convention if the effect was to sway the ballot in her direction. In essence these states would be KINGMAKER'S by breaching the rules. That's not fair to the states that played by the rules and would GUARANTEE that in future primaries other states would jump the gun as well.
Allow them to participate once the nominee is determined, but in no way should they be permitted to be involved in the nominating process.
More proof the woman will do anything to win. Clinton sheep--how do you defend the indefensable?
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 25, 2008 4:40 PM:Obama really IS an idiot. All he had to say was that it should be decided at the convention, which it will be, period. But no, instead the Fool prefers to alienate a large swath of voters to no real purpose.
Clinton only made this demand earlier today. Obama has not yet responded. Wouldn't it be fair to let him actual respond before you criticize his response as foolish?
This is just more self-serving politics from Clinton.
You say that as if it were a bad thing. Your "self-serving politics" is my "enlightened self-interest" on this point. What is our overall interest in antagonizing MI and FL? Meanwhile, I suppose that if it really does come to the point where these delegates make a difference then your point is more forceful. At present, however, I guess that I am not expecting the final delegate counts at the end of March to be quite so close. Do you agree that it is pointless to exclude MI and FL if Clinton can win the nomination even without them? If so, then how is it wrong for her to call for them to be included now. It is a smart move, and you can hardly blame a candidate for making a tactically smart move to benefit himself or herself.
CT Voter wrote on January 25, 2008 4:41 PM:"disenfranchise"? Nice choice of words. Look, no matter what happens with the delegates from Michigan and FLorida, the actual voters of those states haven't been disenfranchised--they got to vote, they'll get to vote.
As for the claim that Senator Clinton won Michigan, so there, you nutty stupid Obama supporters...well, it wasn't exactly a standard election, and to claim that the results would have been the same with Obama and Edwards both on the ballot seems like some serious wishful thinking. Unfortunately, since Clinton couldn't get her name off the ballot in time (her campaign tried), we're not ever going to know about Michigan. To push this point, now, seems like some serious overreaching on the part of Clinton, and I don't think it's going to do her any good.
But it DOES start to take the focus of her talkative spouse in South Carolina, doesn't it? Remember Bill?
Mission Accomplished for the Clinton Campaign.
Don't like the campaign they're running, but I appreciate its deviousness.
last exit wrote on January 25, 2008 4:42 PM:By the way, Billary Zombies, you are aware that the primaries are proportional right? The winner does not take all. The upshot? This thing could go on a LONG time. Hillary could lose this thing. Think about that. Hillary could LOSE.
john mccutchen wrote on January 25, 2008 4:43 PM:Greg can spin all he wants. I've beat him to the draw on this one ...gone viral all over this site and elsewhere
It's been obvious FOR MONTHS what the Clintons have been up to
I have said so here and at TPM CAFE
The Crass Clowntoons
First the Clintons Machine created Tsunami Tuesday hoping to bury insurgent candidacies before the first vote was cast.
Then, when that didn't work, the Clintons machine moved up the Michigan and Florida primaries for 2/5 Disaster Insurance
Then, when that didn't work......
The Clinton's Michigan/Florida Scam
Mrs. Clinton Calls for State Delegations to be Seated
I thought she'd have the decency to wait until at least March before she sprung the fraud
I'll say it again, for emphasis:
Who are we no longer talking about?
Mission Accomplished, Clinton Campaign.
DemUnity08 wrote on January 25, 2008 4:45 PM:Obama supporters were universally outraged that Clinton supporters in Nevada went to court to challenge at-work caucuses. Clinton is evil! She wants to take away people's right to vote! She wants to DISENFRANCHISE!
Never mind that nobody ever proposed taking any vote away from anyone. If Obama supporters said it, it had to be true.
Now, Clinton comes out in favor of allowing the voters of Michigan and Florida to have their vote counted. And Obama supporters again are OUTRAGED. Clinton is evil! She wants to change the rules! She's playing politics rather than standing up for principle!
Have the Obama supporters no shame?
john mccutchen wrote on January 25, 2008 4:46 PM:The Clintons must think all Democrats are mindless lemmings like Greg Sargent.
But isn't it supremely ironic, that the Clintons would so brazenly try to steal the nomination of the very party victimized by Bush v. Gore
Doesn't surprise me in the least. I just can't believe those hamhocks had the balls to pull their stunt this early
NoBoy wrote on January 25, 2008 4:46 PM:DeLassus: Obama has responded through his campaign manager David Plouffe.
Sheesh!
Well this is a battle between the Progressive Democrats of our party who support Obama or John Edwards and the DLC Democrats of this party who support the Clintons.
Did anybody doubt that she would go back on her word if it would benefit her? She seriously will do whatever she has to to get the nomination - including undoing all of the good that us Progressive Democrats have done over the past 7 years to rebuild this party and stand up to the Bush Administration whenever it counted.
While we progressives were flooding the streets of our hometowns to fight against this war in Iraq, Hillary and the DLC Democrats were voting for it. While we were flooding the streets to knock on doors and do all of the hard work to not concede a single state or a single race to turn Congress Democratic in 2006, Bill Clinton wasn't out there agressively campaigning and spreading the truth of our Progressive ideas to help.
Anyone who doesn't see this as an all out split in the party is just not very active in the party. And the idea that the Clintons can put a bandaid on the split by offering Obama a VP nomination after they have essentially spit on all of the hard working volunteers of this party, well then they are completely insane.
The danger is that if Hillary and the DLC old wing of the party win with all of this crazy lie telling, back pedling, and doing whatever the hell it takes to win the nomination, we stand to lose the November election, right along with a ton of the organization that has been finally winning us elections.
Good job Bill and Hillary - first you turned liberal in to a bad word and now you are attempting to kill the grass roots progressive wing of our party.
lastexit wrote on January 25, 2008 4:48 PM:actually i need to change my tag to like lasttool you know?
sadie wrote on January 25, 2008 4:50 PM:so now do i get my gwold star?!
terje wrote on January 25, 2008 4:51 PM:Timing is everything
Everyone expects Michigan and Florida delegations to get seated -- but it was always assumed that wouldn't happen until someone had sewn up the nomination and would be able to seat the delegations as a goodwill/unity gesture
By raising it now, Clinton is attempting to game the system -- she's obviously angling for votes in Florida's primary next Tuesday, so she's sending this message. .
She also really wants the delegate totals to start showing her with a big lead -- and she would need Michigan to count (especially assuming Obama wins SC). Feb 5 could very well to come out as a big mess and relatively even delegate split
The cynicism amazes me -- I wonder how her supporters in Iowa and NH feel about how she handled her pledge. Does anyone care that she broke that pledge in the first place by putting her name on the Michigan ballot? Now she's playing footsie with it by throwing this out to Florida on the eve of their primary. (I wouldn't be surprised to see her in Florida Sunday or Monday openly campaigning). Is a pledge made by Hillary Clinton worth anything?
It will be horrible if we end up with a contested convention and the nomination cam down to floor fights over seating Michigan and Florida, or to trying to have superdelegates overturn the outcome of the primaries and caucuses. That would tear us apart far more than the current campaign conflicts are.
Yes, FL and Mich will be seated eventually -- but her calling for it now is nothing more than pure political opportunism.
Hillary Clinton really will say or do anything to get elected, won't see?
nogo war wrote on January 25, 2008 4:51 PM:Our memories are so fragile.
As fragile as mine is I remember
struggle for change and the rancor
not only to have Howard Dean head the DNC, but after. The real POWER against Dean, then and now came from here.
http://www.dlc.org/
When HRC is featured on the DLC website,
I really...really want supporters of HRC
to defend the DLC as the voice and direction of our Party.
I really want supporters of HRC to proudly embrace the DLC.
If you embrace the DLC as the core, if you embrace the DLC as change? Fine...
2006 gains were a direct result of DNC Chairman Dean's 50 State energy.
Keith:
And at the end of the day, it would be WRONG to seat these delegates at the convention if the effect was to sway the ballot in her direction.However, nobody is proposing that we wait until closer to the convention to determine if seating these delegates would make a difference to benefit one candidate or another, are they? Clinton is just getting on the record NOW saying they should be counted so nobody can say she's only serving self-interest. If Obama wants to stick up for the principle of refusing to seat delegates from states, effectively disenfranchising two key battleground states, then he should say so. CT Voter wrote on January 25, 2008 4:53 PM:
Obama supporters were universally outraged that Clinton supporters in Nevada went to court to challenge at-work caucuses.
Clinton supporters only took this action after the expected union endorsement didn't materialize. If they were so bothered by the caucus arrangement, it took them a long time to bring it up--since the arrangements had been in place since March 07....If Clinton had been endorsed by the culinary union, her supporters wouldn't have cared. It's all about winning, not principles.
Like I said: gotta appreciate the sheer viciousness of the campaign.
LynnDee wrote on January 25, 2008 4:53 PM:To whoever has decided to counter my post by using my ID:
Is that the best you can do? You have nothing substantive to say but can only usurp my ID?
Doesn't speak too well for you or whatever cause you might be espousing, does it? (I'll give Hillary a break and not jump to the conclusion that you're one of her stellar supporters.)
Genghis wrote on January 25, 2008 4:54 PM:The more I think about this, the madder it makes me. Suppose that Obama wins the nomination but to do so, he has to force the issue on discounting MI and FL votes. Then he would face more anger in the general election in those states than the Dem candidate will as it is. So by pressing this issue, Clinton could conceivably cause Obama to lose the general election. And for what? So that she can get a few more primary votes from a state that won't make a difference at the convention. I repeat, it's self-serving politics.
tym wrote on January 25, 2008 4:54 PM:Another lie from Hillary
Cant she even follow the rules of the Democratic party and the DNC
The party rules should not be made to favor the Clintons as she wants.
She is a scab that broke the rules and now wants to benefit from breaking the rules
Just another reason to never vote for the Clintons again
End the Bush-Clinton era of politics
What will be the excuse when she wins Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, etc. You Obama guys are ridiculous. How did Hillary win NH and Nevada, when Obama was a shoe in to win? White people will not support him. He can't win the nomination with only the black vote. I don't know why you all can't see that. The more black support he gets, the more white support he loses.
Maria wrote on January 25, 2008 4:57 PM:She could give a rat's ass if she takes the party down with her. Great move, Hillary.
JR wrote on January 25, 2008 4:57 PM:HUH??? Earlier this week, when Obama ran a national ad, she complained that it broke the rules as it ran in Florida - and every other state. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/obama_airs_nati.html
Does she not think we notice these things? I hope Howard Dean stands his ground. Somebody has to show the Clintons that they are not in charge of the Democratic party.
bvd wrote on January 25, 2008 4:59 PM:Why on earth would the DNC punish candidates who followed the DNC rules and reward a candidate who didn't? Why would the DNC change the rules in the middle of the campaign to benefit one candidate? Why does Hillary think her shit doesn't smell?
Whether the decision to not recognize the delegates of MI and FL was right or wrong it would be outrageous to recognize them now. In fact, it would probably prompt me to switch from registered Democrat to Independent. Coup d'Etats are supposed to be for Republicans.
Forget the country for a moment - I'm starting to think Obama is the last hope of the Democratic Party.
Dan wrote on January 25, 2008 5:02 PM:This is ridiculous! You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Why do the Clintons always switch positions for political expediency? Grow some backbones for crying out loud.
CT Voter wrote on January 25, 2008 5:03 PM:The Clinton campaign theme, according to Bret:
White people will not support him. He can't win the nomination with only the black vote. I don't know why you all can't see that. The more black support he gets, the more white support he loses.
Sweet.
wglad wrote on January 25, 2008 5:03 PM:IMHO,she won't lose Michigan in the general, and might not lose Florida. Look what's happening in the Republican primary there.
john mccutchen wrote on January 25, 2008 5:04 PM:Before the Clintons' Swiftboaters launch
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am as queer as a three dollar bill, have been out years before Barney bought boys in DC, and am infatuated with Eric Kleefeld
Ole Barney Fag's showing us how much he learned from his boy whores. First he stabbed Newsom in the back on Gay Marriage, now he's helping the Clintons steal the nomination He was in on the Conference call where Clintons announced their plan to steal the Michigan and Florida delegations. At the same time Ole Barney attacked Obama for not being ready to 'Refight the battles of the 1990's" I hope Barney's boys charged appropriately.
what a pile of shit Barney Frank is
kozmik wrote on January 25, 2008 5:04 PM:Clintons, as principled as ever.
Steve wrote on January 25, 2008 5:04 PM:We are Democrats. We count all the votes. Period.
Silvestri_Woman wrote on January 25, 2008 5:04 PM:I agree that to grant Sen. Clinton's request would be utterly unfair to Sens. Edwards and Obama. Unlike her, they respected the DNC's request to pull their names off the MI ballot. To grant her the delegates would be most certainly undemocratic.
If anyone agrees with me, I urge you to contact the DNC at http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contactissues.
We are Democrats. We count all the votes. Period.
I am a Democrat
You are a Clintonista
You lie and steal elections
I put paid to your lies
Ni Daye wrote on January 25, 2008 5:07 PM:I'm a Hillary supporter but this pledge from her is unnecessary. She will win FL anyway and she should not need FL to win. If there is a brokered convention, which is highly unlikely, the FL delegates will certainly have their say. For once, I believe Hillary has over stepped the boundary. this is not nice to NH or Iowa. Of course, Iowans were not very nice with her but NH voters literally saved her.
Observer wrote on January 25, 2008 5:07 PM:OF course. Why am I not surprised.
Cheat & Win.
That's all we need to know about the Clitons.
If they were going to seat those delagates, they should have done it before.
You can't pull a George W. Bush and make sure that the counting is either started or stopped based on if you win again, after the fact.
I think it was wrong in the first place that they took the delegates away, but now I believe its too late to be fair.
That would be like say, um... you know, you can have these delegates so you can win Clinton.
That's a good political ploy though. Wait till after you win MI and right before you win FL and then yell, I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS! THOSE PEOPLE'S VOICES ARE BEING HEARD IN THE CONVENTION!
Voter disenfranchisement! Voter disenfranchisement! Voter disenfranchisement! Voter disenfranchisement!
This doesn't surprise me. It sickens me and I foretold she would do it.
Lizmom23 wrote on January 25, 2008 5:08 PM:Genghis -
Why would Obama necessarily face for anger from MI and FL for not seating their delegates? That only presumes that the state as a whole would support Clinton. Right now, the majority of MI delegates are committed to Clinton, but only because the primary was not an open competition. The delegate counts from both states will not be representative without actual primary contests, which neither state will have had.
Keith wrote on January 25, 2008 5:10 PM:Demunity08:
I see so when she agreed that these states (MI and FL) wouldn't count for anything, did she mean it? Or does she mean it that they should be seated now? In short, was she pandering before or is she pandering now?
Again, I don't have a problem seating these delegates after the nominee is decided. If she's got an issue with that, I suggest she take it up with the DNC. You know, that body that sets the rules and regulations for Democratic primaries. The ones violated by the Michigan and Florida Democratic Parties.
Instead of his usual vapid spin Greg Sargent and all Democrats should be outraged and should be asking the simple question:
- Why have the Clintons revealed their Florida/Michigan con game BEFORE 2/5?
Are they THAT desperate?
This stinks to high heaven...I have been a voice crying about it in the wilderness for months
Anyone with eyes open could have seen this disgusting power play coming....
Greg Sargent is a fraud
The Clintons are a fraud
Take back YOUR Party Democrats
CT Voter says: "Even a five year old might grasp that this seems pretty low."
Yes, but fortunately for Senator Clinton, her target audience might not.
Ji wrote on January 25, 2008 5:11 PM:This is one of the many reasons I will not be voting for Hillary in my state's primary. I'm tired of Hillary's politics, the way she frequently postures for political gain. It's annoying and not what our country needs.
I am a Democrat, no questions about it. It pains me to say this, but if Hillary is our nominee, I don't know if I can vote for her. The only reason I'd vote for Hillary (if she's the nominee) would be because I care deeply about the composition of the Supreme Court. Most of the "liberal justices" are getting up there in age, while Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Robertsare in their prime. Souter, Breyer, The Gins, and JP Stevens are all pretty old.
Davis X. Machina wrote on January 25, 2008 5:12 PM:Is somebody doing the maths, and discovering that Hillary's going to need those two states?
I can't see stirring the shit up like this unless it's really, really necessary.
Mary wrote on January 25, 2008 5:13 PM:Wow, the Clinton campaign and disregard for the rules. Truly breathtaking. I guess this shows what kind of president they'll be. You know - if the DNC rules that they agreed to dont matter, what happens when they take an oath to uphold the constitution? I guess that might be optional as well. Hey we already have a president like that. Lets have another! Yeah! As a matter of fact, I believe the candidates were asked if they would relinquish the outrageous power Bush gave himself. Hillary refused to. If America is this stupid to elect this woman I am really considering moving to Canada. The America I know and believe in is truly dead.
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 5:14 PM:Real clear rules changes,here!
Stupid, as ever! Well?
A no issue is born, thanks Hillary or is it Bill! You are consistent!
This F**k the rules move by Hillery should not be a surprise. After all she is a leader of the radical wing of the Democratic Party
http://www.dlc.org/
This is not, I repeat, This is not.. a challenge to DNC Chairman Howard Dean.
This is HRC, finally saying out loud the most listened to song on her ipod
Right on HRC!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bM_l443VV4
Bret, I guess all those caucus goers in Iowa were black according to your brilliant statement.
Hillary was leading in NH by double digits for months and he came pretty damn close in the vote count there (and in NV) anyhow. He actually won in rural districts in Nevada that are not exactly overflowing with African Americans.
You want to base you idiotic assumptions on the white red-neck voters of South Carolina? Sorry but not every white voter is going to get "freaked" out that Obama has some black people supporting him - in spite of the fact that the Clinton camp will try their best to spin an Obama win in SC with the support of blacks as evidence of some sort of "fatal" racial divide.
The Clinton's divisive, cynical tactics are just repellent.
Why would the dems want to stick it to two of the largest states in the nation?
Because if the other state legislatures see that there are zero consequences to breaking the rules they previously agreed to, all hell will break loose as state legislatures try to leapfrog their states into first place and, eventually, we end up with the next presidential campaign cycle beginning before the 2010 midterms. That's why.
Florida and Michigan were not "disenfranchised" by the party leadership. They were disenfranchised by their own state legislatures. The petulent pouting from those states reminds me of a bunch of rich kids howling in outrage when they discover, too late, that the criminal laws apply to them just like they do to the little people.
john mccutchen wrote on January 25, 2008 5:18 PM:I am on record
Sargent's on Notice
Note the dates
Nota bene
TPM CAFE Exchange - Marshall Ganz post
On January 21, 2008 - 1:42pm cloudy said:
A very good column. I would like to see SOMEONE grapple with the issue of how the primary schedule is structured, with a "MONSTER TUESDAY" coming up Feb 5 that acts as an almost insurmountable firewall defending whoever started out as the presumptive nominee (HRC) as against any reasonably effective insurgent candidacy (Obama).
WHERE ARE THE PUNDITS WHEN YOU NEED THEM?
On January 21, 2008 - 1:49pm jexster said:J. McCutchen
You're preaching to the converted here! Monster Tuesday was supposed to render the Clintons inevitable and eliminate all effective opposition months before the first vote was cast. We saw an unrelenting campaign unfold precisely along these lines last fall.
But something happened on the way to the coronation. Barack Obama happened, and when it became clear that his was a viable "insurgency", the Clinton machine responded by taking out some coronation insurance. The Michigan and Florida primaries were moved up.
The DNC didn't stand for the scam but the result is nearly as effective. If this nominating process should fail to produce a presumptive nominee, the Clintons have insurance in the unseated delegates they "won" in Florida and Michigan.
This is their hole card. Don't for a minute think that they will hesitate to play it
On January 22, 2008 - 10:10am destor23 said:
If Hillary beats Obama it's not going to be the result of some zany conspiracy.
On January 23, 2008 - 5:54pm jexster said:
J. McCutchen
Nothing hidden about the conspiracy. Bill Clinton's been building this machine since 1986
If Hillary beats Obama, it will be because of Bill's rolodex of party officials
On January 25, 2008 - 3:28pm jexster said:
J. McCutchen
First the Clintons Machine created Tsunami Tuesday hoping to bury insurgent candidacies before the first vote was cast.
Then, when that didn't work, the Clintons machine moved up the Michigan and Florida primaries for 2/5 Disaster Insurance
Then, when that didn't work......
The Clinton's Michigan/Florida Scam
Mrs. Clinton Calls for State Delegations to be Seated
I thought she'd have the decency to wait until at least March before she sprung the fraud
There are no do-overs in politics
It is time for The Clintons to go
It is time for Greg Sargent to go
Edith wrote on January 25, 2008 5:19 PM:That's it. We've had it. This is the last straw. My partner and I are switching to Obama. We were hold-outs among our friends, but it's time to wake up to reality. Hillary would no longer be a victory for anyone, or anything. It really hurts to say that, I must say.
Just so everyone knows what is at stake; whoever has the most delegates going into the convention is going to control the delegate situation:
Under convention rules, a credentials committee controlled by the presidential candidate with the most delegates will verify the legitimacy of delegates.
http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=107361
So, just know that if Clinton is ahead by one delegate, she will seat Michigan and Florida to put herself over the top.
Jim J wrote on January 25, 2008 5:23 PM:If the shoe was on the other foot the Obama people would be screaming "disenfranchisement. Good for Hillary. At least somebody's sticking up for voters in these two important states. I have no idea why the Obamaniacs have such a problem with seating these delegates. Oh, wait. I know exactly why they have problems. Because Obama stupidly took his name off the ballot in one state and will get crushed in the other one.
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on January 25, 2008 5:26 PM:There is a certain poetic justice in this. This is the death knell of the NH primary. Great slap at those NH clitonistas who worked their fingers to the bone to save her campain.
What an arrogant, narciissist.
Kathy wrote on January 25, 2008 5:29 PM:Obama would have done the same thing; indeed, he would've been rightfully considered a very bad politician had he not. Why is this an issue? More whining from the Obama camp. Do you think the republicans are going to care if they hurt your feelings? Grow a pair.
RC wrote on January 25, 2008 5:29 PM:The anti-establishment candidate sides with the establishment while the supposed establishment candidate goes against it.
Come on Obama supporters, I thought you never disenfranchised anyone.
I would agree that Mi delegates are sort of out-of-step, but FL where all three candidates are on ballot, come on? For once show that there is more to Obama than just talk.
I cannot, for the life of me, see how any progressive is supporting her campaign.
She clearly abhors the democratic process in this country.
coyote wrote on January 25, 2008 5:30 PM:The inane arguments made by Hillary supporters here sound just like the inane arguments made by Bush supporters elsewhere. Maybe that nonsense will work for getting elected, but it doesn't do much for the country.
john mccutchen wrote on January 25, 2008 5:33 PM:Barney Frank stabbed LGBT Dems in the back on Gay Marriage in 2004
Barney doesn't want you to ask
But I am here to tell. Now that Frank has cast off all pretense of being a whore for The Clintons, LGBT voters should think back to 2004 and what he did to us on Gay Marriage
Now you know how blacks feel when the First Black President and his First Black Lady swiftboat a black man and play the race card
Campaign manager David Plouffe:
No one is more disappointed that Florida Democrats will have no role in selecting delegates for the nomination of the party’s standard bearer than Senator Obama.Hey wrote on January 25, 2008 5:33 PM:
When Senator Clinton was campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, she made it clear that states like Michigan and Florida that wouldn’t produce any delegates, ‘don’t count for anything.’ Now that Senator Clinton’s worried about losing the first Southern primary, she’s using Florida for her own political gain by trying to assign meaning to a contest that awards zero delegates and where no campaigning has occurred. Senator Clinton’s own campaign has repeatedly said that this is a ‘contest for delegates’, and Florida is a contest that offers zero. Whether it is Barack Obama’s record, her position on Social Security, or even the meaning of the Florida Primary, it seems like Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to win an election. When he is the nominee, Barack Obama will campaign vigorously in Florida and Michigan to put them in the Democratic column in 2008.
Here's an idea. If after February 5 there is no nominee, tell Florida and and Michigan that they can have their delegates counted, if they hold an additional primary or caucus, after the 5th. It would probaby have to be a caucus since that is party run.
If they wanted attention, it seems like the later the primary/caucus this year, the more attention they will receive.
What do you think?
Mike wrote on January 25, 2008 5:37 PM:That's it. We've had it. This is the last straw. My partner and I are switching to Obama. We were hold-outs among our friends, but it's time to wake up to reality. Hillary would no longer be a victory for anyone, or anything. It really hurts to say that, I must say.
I know how you feel. I was also a Clinton supporter, but now, I'm going to have a hard time even voting for them in a general election.
Keith wrote on January 25, 2008 5:38 PM:Ezra Klein has some good points on the ramification posed by this latest Clinton tactic:
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 5:42 PM:For you all freaking moronic Obama supporters, when your love boy decided to advertise in FL, did anyone express any outrage? You are stupid people, lower than the republicans. You are all hypocrits, you are all sore losers!
cd wrote on January 25, 2008 5:42 PM:
The anti-Hillary cognitive dissonance here is just sad. Serious Kubler-Ross stage behaviors.
The Michigan and Florida delegates were and are going to be seated anyway, duh.
So...guess what. The Clinton campaign is now playing you whiners and the enabling media outrage artists into Total Outrage Overload.
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 5:43 PM:ABC News: Obama Camp Still Has $100,000 In Rezko Cash
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/abc_news_obama_camp_still_has_100000_in_rezko_cash.php
You stupid Obama supporters, what are you going to do with this 100,000 cash. YOu will use it to buy paper towel to wipe your crying faces. You are hypocrits, nothing more!
Common Sense wrote on January 25, 2008 5:44 PM:I don't know why folks are trying to have a rational discussion with any HRC supporter on this issue. If they cared about integrity, rules, regulations, etc., they wouldn't be supporting the Clintons (who've demonstrated time and again, that it's about THEM, not anyone else). They won't acknowledge the absurdity of the Clintons tactics, no matter what. They've got their marching orders from the mothership. Resistance is fuitile.
The fact is, the DNC instituted these rules and 48 other states complied with them. Rules are rules. Seat them AFTER the nominee is decided. Allowing them to participate in the nomination process only benefits the Clintons.
Genghis wrote on January 25, 2008 5:46 PM:Lizmom23 wrote
Why would Obama necessarily face for anger from MI and FL for not seating their delegates?
Lizmom23, I wasn't very clear in my post. If Obama is smart, he'll handle this quietly with the DNC. But if this turns into a big fight and Obama's forced to publicly defend the DNC's dismissal of FL & MI votes in order to win the nomination, then voters in those states may choose to punish the the Dems and Obama for making that call. This is going to be an issue for the Dems no matter what, but Clinton is raising the stakes by drawing even more attention to it. She gains with FL & MI voters, but everyone else loses, which is bad for the Dems if she turns out not to be the nominee. Thus, this move is good for HRC and bad for the DNC. Self-serving politics.
sue wrote on January 25, 2008 5:46 PM:With all the BS that Hillary is engaged in to win the nomination, I think she’ll eventually secure it for herself, but at a great price. There is a lot of anger coming out of NH and NV right now because of the tactics Hillary’s supporters employed in those states to win:
*throwing Obama’s volunteers out of voting stations in NH, thereby interfering with their get out the vote efforts
*telling Hillary’s supporters at the NV caucuses to arrive early, then shutting the doors on Obama’s voters before they were supposed to be closed (complaints at HUNDREDS of caucus locations)
*voter suppression
*suing the culinary union that endorsed Obama in NV because Hillary didn’t get their support
*floating allegations of “voter intimidation” against Obama in NV
*last minute attack mailers to women in NH and NV
*lying about Obama’s positions
*floating the “Obama is a radical Muslim” emails
*playing the race card; etc. etc.
Granted, even in democratic primaries/caucuses, there’s bound to be the odd robocall, attack mailer, or efforts to misstate an opponent’s positions/votes, but the voter suppression and voter intimidation tactics speak of corruption from the top down, at higher levels in the state parties themselves. I don’t think people understand yet how upset a lot of those voters were and how upset a lot of Obama’s supporters are – not just about losing (it happens), but about all the voter suppression/intimidation tactics that were used. I KNOW Hillary will only step up these antics as she proceeds state to state, and there will be A LOT of angry democrats left in her wake, who won’t be coming out to support her in the fall – black, white, brown, and everything in between.
Hillary may win the nomination, but I think she’ll lose the election because (among other reasons) she will have so demoralized the base that many of them will stay home rather than support her. However, the republican base will be energized by getting the democrat they want to run against. I KNEW democrats would find a way to blow this thing. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I think this shows that Hillary can't be trusted to keep her word. That's not the kind of person I want leading the country. End of story.
Thank you, Sarah. I agree!
tekel wrote on January 25, 2008 5:52 PM:Sarah: I dropped in to express that exact sentiment, and you beat me to it. Hillary will say nice things to your face and then STAB YOU IN THE EYE the second she sees an advantage.
Unacceptable.
Ni Daye wrote on January 25, 2008 5:52 PM:Don't blame Hillary, blame Howard Dean and the national party!
How can you deny people's votes, especially in the case of Florida? Those poor people, the party is so destroyed that they cannot choose their own primary date, how can you deny them? Those people are basically squeezed by both the national Democratic party and the local republican party. And mind you, they have already turned in more absentee votes than all votes casted by people in NH, IA, and NV. Are you going to tell them their votes don't count and they should not bother to vote at all.
The Republicans are much smarter! They halved the delegates from all states holding primaries ahead of Feb.5. Why the Dem. don't have this common sense?
Sent this not only to the LGBT O Groups but also to Obama Supporter Sup. Bevan Dufty who now occupies D8 seat of Harvey Milk:
Barney Frank stabbed LGBT Dems in the back on Gay Marriage in 2004. Those of us here in SF remember and will not forget his public pillorying of Mayor Newsom in February 2004RC wrote on January 25, 2008 5:55 PM:
Barney doesn't want you to ask
But I am here to tell.
Today Barney made TWO appearances for the Clintons. The first in a conference call to support The Clintons attempt to seat the Michigan and Florida Delegations.
In the second, he attacked Barack as "being unfit to fight the battles of the 1990's"
Now that Frank has cast off any pretense of integrity, LGBT voters should think back to 2004 and what he did to us on Gay Marriage Now you know how blacks feel when the First Black President and his First Black Lady swiftboat a black man and play the race card.
Barney Frank won't ask
But we must tell. Barney Frank has no integrity.
It is time for Barney Frank to go
ObamaPost-Senator Nelson (FL) to endorse Clinton.
My guess his endorsement was the reason why Hillary's camp came out with this statement. ObamaPost ``speculates'' that the Senator may asked Hillary to fight for the delegates.
john mccutchen wrote on January 25, 2008 5:56 PM:Ni Daye...back on your turnip truck
The Clintons have been plotting this for over a year.
They'll steal a nomination if they must and THAT's exactly what is happening
Take back your party Democrats
It does not belong to Bill Clinton
un-freakin-believable wrote on January 25, 2008 5:57 PM:Let me repeat what I just wrote to the DNC.
I've contributed a lot to the DNC since Howard Dean rolled out the 50-state strategy. If the DNC gives in to this obvious power play, they will never see another dime of my money. period.
Once again, Hillary is bound and determined to destroy the party. Pathetic. I am so done with the Clintons.
Mark wrote on January 25, 2008 5:57 PM:Anybody surprised by this move hasn't been paying attention to the way the Clintons have run their entire campaign. Self-serving, dishonest, shameless.
The abortion lies in New Hampshire and the last-minute lawsuit in Nevada are just the most obvious examples.
Clinton supporters: it's not too late to do the right the thing. Please step back and consider what the democratic party is supposed to stand for.
john mccutchen wrote on January 25, 2008 5:58 PM:Dateline Denver
Clintons Steal Nomination
SuperDelegates Fall in Line and Seat Renegade Delegations
They'll break the Democratic party and they could care less
Obama: DON'T COUNT THE VOTES IN FLORIDA!
I guess this is one of the good ideas he picked up from the Republicans in the past 10 to 15 years.
john mccutchen wrote on January 25, 2008 6:01 PM:Clinton supporters: it's not too late to do the right the thing.
It's past too late
Do you think The Clintons care for their supporters any more than they care about honesty or the Democratic Party?
Ask Barney Frank
He won't tell
storm wrote on January 25, 2008 6:01 PM:i am from mi.
i for one would be angry (more than i am now for being passed over) if they were to reverse course and seat the delegates. The lack of seating the delegates changed my vote, and greatly effected the outcome in general.
If Obama is our nominee I'll be happy to vote for him, but I hope he's not as big a crybaby as his supporters. We need to win an election not listen to speeches.
Mike wrote on January 25, 2008 6:02 PM:My guess his endorsement was the reason why Hillary's camp came out with this statement. ObamaPost ``speculates'' that the Senator may asked Hillary to fight for the delegates.
Yes. Nelson publicly said he would support whoever did that. The question I have is whether this was worth it for Clinton. What does this endorsement give her other than questions about her integrity?
Ni Daye wrote on January 25, 2008 6:05 PM:What are the obama supporters intending to tell FL voters? They should not bother to vote at all? I saw somewhere that more absentee votes have been casted than all votes casted in the other three primaries. Should you Obama voters go and tell those people: stop wasting your time and your postage, your vote will never be counted!!!
By the way, the FL Democratic party is so weak that it cannot back out of the early primary date. As I said earlier, they get squeezed by the local republicans. Now they should be squeezed by national Democratic party as well?
hubris wrote on January 25, 2008 6:09 PM:Sure, the Democrats will count all votes, but according to the rules of the game.
Since some are arguing to change the rules ad hoc, do you support W. Bush’s similar methods?
Frankly, I suspect that HRC’s expectation has radically changed and we will only know why a bit later.
stlounick wrote on January 25, 2008 6:13 PM:Hillary has counted up the delegates and has decided she doesn't like those "uncommitted" votes which keeps delegates from her.
Florida needs to vote or caucus or whatever they are doing there and write in "uncommitted". This is a vote against Hillary and against fixing the primary.
I would urge everyone in Florida to vote in whatever mechanism has been arranged.
Thanks.
Siberian wrote on January 25, 2008 6:15 PM:Obama and Edwards should have seen this coming with their withdrawal of names from Michigan.
If it does come down to the wire there will be a huge push to seat these delegates.
And I'll bet in the end if that would decide the nomination, they will get seated and Obama's pandering to NH/Iowa by withdrawing his name from the ballot might just cost him the nomination.
As a Michigan voter while I would rather someone other then Clinton get the nomination there is a part of me that would take a bit of joy in seeing her get it just because she kept her name on the Michigan ballot. ;)
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 25, 2008 6:16 PM:Florida needs to vote or caucus or whatever they are doing there and write in "uncommitted".
Er, wouldn't we rather that Floridians vote for Obama rather than "uncommitted." Unlike MI, his name is still on the ballot down there (FL law does not allow it to be removed once the candidate has filed papers).
Matthew wrote on January 25, 2008 6:18 PM:Regardless of who 'gets' the delegates, it was wrong to deny the seats these to states and however it is done and in whatever apportionment, they need to be restored before the convention. And, very clearly, a new set of rules and calendar needs to be agreed upon and set for future elections. Among these, getting rid of Iowa and New Hampshire as first in nation AND getting rid of Super Tuesday. Maybe a lottery among region, then within region or something. Else, maybe by bid on which state raises the most money for the national party by a certain date.
I'm curious why Florida and Michigan become news now, the eve before South Carolina. I want to read more on this but maybe by Obama to poison feelings about Clinton, maybe force her to quickly disassociate herself from it? Maybe because Obama realizes that the win in Florida will be extreme? The apparent endorsements are nice but not helpful tomorrow in South Carolina. Maybe good in Super Tuesday, but again, why now? Who's the messenger for this news this afternoon?
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 25, 2008 6:22 PM:I'm curious why Florida and Michigan become news now, the eve before South Carolina.
Because Clinton called today for her delegates to insist that FL and MI be seated at the convention. Did you not see the post to which all of these combox responses are addressed?
Ms wrote on January 25, 2008 6:23 PM:Going into this, I was OK with all the Democratic nominees. I'm a Democrat. I'll vote for the eventual nominee. I even plan to volunteer for the eventual nominee.
But if Hillary does this, not only will I skip volunteering, I will NOT vote for her.
It's true that the Democratic Party (not Hillary) made this Michigan / Florida mess. But no candidate deserves to gain from this disaster. Michigan Democratic voters were told that their vote simply didn't matter. Obama and Edwards weren't even on the ticket, making it impossible to know the true feelings of Michigan voters.
If Hillary forces these delegates to be seated BEFORE a nominee is chosen, Hillary will not get my vote.
I've always voted and will definitely vote in the upcoming election. And there is ZERO chance I'll vote for a Republican. But Bloomberg? Maybe...
If she STEALS the nomination by having Michigan and Florida delegates seated, she won't get my vote and of course, won't get me as a volunteer.
I'm sure I'm not the only Democrat with these feelings.
Paulie wrote on January 25, 2008 6:24 PM:So hillary's campaign tried (really hard) to get her name off of the Michigan ballot but since they couldn't (darn!) she is now saying she deserves those delegates? Which idiot in her campaign thought that this tactic was a good idea? And to make matters worse, hillary actually LISTENED to them and ran with it.
As Teddy KGB said "bad judgment".
Does not bode well if she is the president. Just like george jr., whatever I want, I get.
josh is right, this has to be smacked down. Hill can't be allowed to shape the rules to fit their gameplan in the middle of said game. I can't see this reflecting well on her.
pheephee wrote on January 25, 2008 6:35 PM:This is another scramble, as was Hillary's infamous "breakdown" in New Hampshire, to lock up a Clinton win.
If these two continue thier dishonesty, it will bring both of them down and Bill can forget his "legacy". It appears that we will remember the "I did not have sexual reations with that woman". Thanks for memories!
oleeb wrote on January 25, 2008 6:37 PM:I'm delighted to see Hillary making this push to get the Michigan and Florida delegates! Hooooray Hill!
Nothing and I mean NOTHING could more clearly demonstrate why she should never be allowed into the White House. Didn't Obama run ads this week she'll say anything to get elected? Now she demonstrates clearly for all to see that not only will she say anything to get elected she will DO anything to get elected.
I pray that she continues to show the voters just exactly what kind of candidate she is and how her relentless need for power demonstrates precisely why she should not have it.
You go girl! ;)
Genghis wrote on January 25, 2008 6:39 PM:Siberian writes
And I'll bet in the end if that would decide the nomination, they will get seated and Obama's pandering to NH/Iowa by withdrawing his name from the ballot might just cost him the nomination.
No way. If it comes down to that, and the vote isn't counted, some Clinton supporters might be pissed off, particularly in FL & MI. But if the DNC reverses it's rule, despite having made the candidates sign pledges not to campaign in those states, it would tear apart the party.
Thanks, Josh, for taking a hard line at TPM.
Matthew wrote on January 25, 2008 6:40 PM:I see and read Hillary's statement and the related news but do not see anything to suggest she is behind the moment or in control of the timing. It seemed in one point that she reacted and said, sure, I support this.' but I do not see that see is orchestrating this. Anyone really see where she is the one orchestrating this? And, even if so, big deal. It needs to be resolved and these folks need their vote at the convention--too bad the others dropped out. But these two states are critical to November's win. That Clinton may outflank Obama is just too bad and more sour grapes from her opponents.
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 6:43 PM:Hillary is one dihonest person. After breaking ranks to register for the ballot in Michigan and claiming to support the Democrat ban on delegates, she now collects delegates with no competition and wants them counted.
Heaven save us from the Clintons. What a mean, dishonest, vicious pair. A life-long Democrat, I believe I would support Satan himself againts Hillary Clinton.
Do the Clintons have any idea the damage they are doing to the nation?
Concerned in Iowa wrote on January 25, 2008 6:46 PM:The Clintons are WORSE than Bush. I cannot believe it. If the Democrats nominate Bill and Hillary, the party is finished.
THE MAJORITY OF HONEST AMERICDANS DO NOT WANT THEM BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.
Matthew, you are a typical hillary sheep. According to you, she is safe because she's not 'really' behind this and even if she is behind it, it's no big deal.
Grow a brain and pick a candidate who you BELIEVE in.
matthew, you surely can't believe this is being done without her assistance or insistence. and if it is, and you think it's improper, yet she "didn't orchestrate" it, what does it say about her? what it says is that either she's trying to rig the game or she has no control over her campaign.
random wrote on January 25, 2008 6:49 PM:I have never been a supporter of Hillary, but today I have had enough. The dangerous, lying Clintons must be stopped. America cannot elect this liar as president. Please count me now officially as a Hillary and Bill hater, and change my registration from Democrat to Independent.
Bill wrote on January 25, 2008 6:49 PM:Josh,
I strongly agree with your argument. I live in Michigan. I voted in the primary, but I voted 'uncommitted'. What this meant for me was a vote of protest against the Democratic leadership in the State of Michigan for getting us into this mess in the first place. Scott Brewer, Carl Levin, Jennifer Granholm, and others badly bungled this issue. While I agree that we should challenge the stranglehold Iowa and New Hampshire has on the primary process, this was not the way to go about it.
Levin and Granholm now support Clinton's efforts to seat the Michigan delegates - they do so only to cover their own asses (and, because Granholm has endorsed Clinton).
There were many who voted for Clinton because she was essentially the only one on the ballot; there were many who voted 'uncommitted', but for a variety of reasons. What do any of these votes actually mean? To seat these delegates at the convention would serve to disenfranchise many of us Michigan voters for a second time. This is an affront to fundamental principles of democracy
Hillary is a selfish, selfish woman who cares more about her own political fortunes than even her own party, much less the common good.
I remember when I heard she was the only one on the ballot in Michigan that I smelled a conspiracy. Now, it appears so.
Mark Kraft wrote on January 25, 2008 6:55 PM:This kind of unethical behavior from the Clinton camp is inexcusable, to the point that I'm identifying more as an "anyone but Hillary" voter than anything else.
That's unfortunate, but I sense that's happening everywhere around me, because she just keeps on with this kind of behavior, not because it's wise, but because she can't help it. It's who she is.
Well, I've put up with eight years of the Clintons being "who they are" and costing our state its Democratic governor and senators, its quality schooling, its public services, etc.
It was just too easy for the Republicans to run against the Clintons, and now we get to see why all over again.
John Edwards is a great man who unfortunately doesn't share the limelight, but I suspect he's likely to become a great Vice President. I plan on voting for Obama, in order to have some hope for meaningful reform. Hopefully, Obama will return the favor and Make John Edwards the next Vice President.
Really, I wish progressives could just work out a deal, where Obama promises to make Edwards the VP and puts him in charge of some of the issues that matter most to him. The alternative of another Clinton dynasty -- soon followed by the complete domination of the House and Senate by Republicans -- is too depressing to think about.
The Grand Panjandrum wrote on January 25, 2008 6:55 PM:Bill and Hillary--its time to go away. Leave the country alone. After the last seven years of kakistocracy the last thing this country needs is a third Clinton term with these disingenuous pricks.
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 6:58 PM:Is Karl Rove still working for the Clintons?
Cal Damage wrote on January 25, 2008 6:59 PM:This is a Democrat FINALLY fighting back as the Republicans continue to disenfranchise Dems in Florida. Remember, this schedule was set by the Republican legislature, and signed into law by Gov. Jeb Bush, with the rank-and-file Democrats fighting against the schedule all the way.
She'll get accolades from the long-time-active Dems in Florida, and their votes, too.
Quitcherbitchin', and tell Howard and the rest of the DNC how you feel about Republicans running the Democratic convention...
Do the Clinton's ever just tell the TRUTH? Or do they always parse, spin, pander, calculate, scheme, rationalize, obfuscate, dissemble, confuse, twist, triangulate, complicate, contradict, obscure, misrepresent, mislead, misstate, prevarication, AND LIE!!!!!!!!!
There is no reason to fear another Clinton presidency. She is already hated by all RepubliCons and Independents and half of the Dumbocraps. Fear a McCain presidency, or worse, a Romney or Giuliani dictatorship. Hellary will not win the general election.
NoBoy wrote on January 25, 2008 7:04 PM:HRC has every right to announce that she will urge her delegates to vote to seat the MI and FLA delegates at the convention. Nothing will be agreed before that unless and until someone emerges with the required delegate count to take the nomination.
And everyone (yes, even Obama, for all his faux outrage) has always known that some compromise will be struck at the convention. Are Obama fans delusional enough to believe the DNC will disenfranchise the MI and FLA voters then?
Oh yeah, primetime tv has Obama fighting to keep FLA delegates from voting! Hah!
I now, it's not fair!
Well children, politics is not fair. HRC has pulled off a small tactical victory here.
However hypocritical you think it, she is standing up for enfranchisement and it will certainly contribute to her growing lead in FLA.
And because Dems need FLA in the GE their delegates will be seated in time to vote for the nomination.
And think of it this way: she has knocked the Obama meme of HRC as Big Fat Reagan Liar off the front page.
Game.
Set.
Match?
All of this hate for Hillay. She will win the nomination regardless. Obama can come back in 4 to 8 yrs and try again. Hillary is an intelligent, goal driven, successful, strong, capable woman. She has been dealing with people underestimating her and calling her every name in the book for years. Politics is no place for the weak. It is rough and tumble and if you can't handle it, get out. No one is going to hold Obama's hand if he makes it to the whitehouse.
puzzled wrote on January 25, 2008 7:08 PM:Greg DeLassus said "I hate to say it, but I am coming around to the view that Clinton will likely be our nominee with or without MI & FL"
Our? Your maybe. If the Clintons are nominated, the traditional coalitions of Democrats will be gone. No honest person who cares about this nation can support that pair. PERIOD.
I was once willing to support any Democrat nominee. No more. The Clintons do not have the integrity, vision, judgment or capacity to unite and lead the NATION. They only appeal to a dishonest, angry, mean revengful fraction of Americans. Corporate dollars may buy them the presidency but will never win the the hearts and minds of honest Americdans.
Matthew wrote on January 25, 2008 7:09 PM:The whining is getting really old. Grow up! This is politics and Hillary is in this to win. I do not see that Hillary is behind the timing of the seating push, but that she is is good. That she gets these folks seated is good. That others chose to sit aside is just sour grapes.
Hillary will very likely be the Democratic nominee. She is no wimp like Kerry, no push-over quiter like Gore, no traitor like Leiberman. She is a scrapping win-at-all-costs candidate that deserves all of our support--now and once she wins the nomination.
It is sickening to read all of the whining shock among commenters. This is politics and if you can't play with the big boys and girls, well... Or, would your rather have some sniveling candidate and party up against a grown-up like McCain? Or and of the others.
Hillary is real, she's ready, she's got good ideas, she's a politician that will compromise when needed, will stand fast when not. I make no bones about supporting her. Compared to her competition in the Democratic primary, how can any not? If not now, then in the general election? For those who would rather go home and pout, or even vote for a Republican or a potential third party candidate, go for it. (I do not think your numbers mean much, your votes won't make a difference. I am especially heartened in this to see the VERY high approval ratings even today for Bill in South Caroline despite all of your ranting and raving about his role in the campaign against Obama. I look forward to seeing him there for Hillary in the fall and stuffing this election and her CLINTON win down the throats of the Republicans.)
Indy wrote on January 25, 2008 7:09 PM:As usual, the Clintons will say and do anything to win!
And in the process, they'll spit in the eye of Howard Dean and the Democratic Party! Hooray, the leadership hates each other!
Genghis wrote on January 25, 2008 7:16 PM:NoBoy writes
And think of it this way: she has knocked the Obama meme of HRC as Big Fat Reagan Liar off the front page.
Game.
Set.
Match?
Uh, yeah, by doing something even more disingenuous and hypocritical and getting that on the front page. I think they call that a double-fault.
plainfolk wrote on January 25, 2008 7:18 PM:w2 said " OMG! There's politics in politics."
hmmm. I don't call this politics, I call this Bush-Rove-Clinton dishonesty and deceit. It is certainly "politics as uusal" for the Clintons and their mean-spirited dishonest followers.
Most honest Americans do not want more of the Bush-Clinton era of lies, partisan warfare, winning at any price to protect the corporate-profiteering status quo.
wglad wrote on January 25, 2008 7:19 PM:Maybe I don't understand the process as well as TPM does, but it is my understanding that the decision to seat those delegates will be made at the convention. She's just letting them know she's going to fight to seat them. Why not? They're her delegates. If she sews up the nomination without them, no one will object to seating them. If she doesn't sew it up, Obama can make a fight of it at the convention. It has always been understood that the party could seat those delegates if they chose to. Why make it sound like some kind of surprise attack? There is a lot of work to be done between now and the convention. I favor keeping the troops engaged and motivated in Michigan and Florida. We don't need to be giving Romney or McCain a head start. TPM really should endorse someone. At least that would provide a context for their tortured reasoning.
Henry wrote on January 25, 2008 7:20 PM:I am sorry but is not Obama running political ads in Florida? He broke the agreement.
bvd wrote on January 25, 2008 7:21 PM:Ni Daye (and all others making the same bizarre point):
Obama didn't create the rules to disallow FL & MI delegates. The DNC did. Months ago. Go argue with Howard Dean if you don't like it.
All Obama did was be a good little Democrat and go along with what the party said. Now Hillary is trying to change the rules in the middle of the game because she would reap the benefit from Obama's loyalty to the party.
I guess you can't get past your desperate, obsessive love of Hillary to recognize the ludicrousness and unfairness of it.
If the situations were reversed you'd be shouting that Obama is proving how he's really a Republican because he won't follow the DNC rules, You guys are really hilarious.
Or should I say HILLARYOUS?
NoBoy wrote on January 25, 2008 7:22 PM:Once again Obama fans:
HRC does not have the power to seat the FL and MI delegates. Do you understand that?
She has every right to tell us what she will ask her delegates to do at the convention.
And get used to it: FL and MI will be seated, they will vote on the nomination, and Obama will agree to that.
It is insane to believe he would publicly disenfranchise the voters of those two states.
Save your outrage for the HRC KILLED VINCE FOSTER meme.
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 7:23 PM:Matthew says: "Hillary will very likely be the Democratic nominee."
If she is, you will see at least 40 percent of the Demcratic party bolt. McCain, Bloomberg?, stay home? Anybody but the Clintons!
Henry wrote on January 25, 2008 7:24 PM:Hillary haters are bunch of cowardly pussies.
Genghis wrote on January 25, 2008 7:25 PM:Mathew writes
She is no wimp like Kerry, no push-over quiter like Gore, no traitor like Leiberman. She is a scrapping win-at-all-costs candidate that deserves all of our support--now and once she wins the nomination.
It is sickening to read all of the whining shock among commenters. This is politics and if you can't play with the big boys and girls, well... Or, would your rather have some sniveling candidate and party up against a grown-up like McCain?
Yeah, she's a fighter all right. Maybe she'll swiftboat her way all the way the White House, just like another president I know. Remember what George W. Bush did to the "real man" McCain in SC? If victory at any cost is your thing, go with Clinton, but it makes me kinda sick. I think that it can get her into office, but the partisan squabbling will get worse. It's bad for the Dems in the long run and bad for the country in general.
Mark wrote on January 25, 2008 7:26 PM:As some have implied, this move will only make her look good in these two states. "Even though other Democrats don't value your opinion, I do." But the chance of her getting the nod when others haven't had a fair chance in the states won't happen.
blackstar wrote on January 25, 2008 7:27 PM:for all of you Clinton-supporting people out there: the issue is not whether the Florida and Michigan delegates count in the the Democratic primary, which was decided last year.
THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE.
the issue is that Clinton, along with all of the other candidates, agreed with the DNC months ago and PLEDGED to not campaign or involve themselves in the primaries of those states. except that, when it became politically useful for her to do so, Clinton abandoned her pledge and is now pushing to include these delegates after winning the first state (by being the only Democrat on the ballot) and being projected to win the 2nd.
the issue here is not disenfranchisement, its dishonesty.
ObamaSupporter wrote on January 25, 2008 7:28 PM:I'm a lifelong Democrat but if my favorite nominee doesn't win because other Democrats preferred Hillary, I will vote for Hitler in the fall rather than see the day when my dream, the glorious, beautiful dream of unity, died ... and all hope perished. And all 383 of my best friends think exactly the same way, so take that!
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 7:28 PM:Noboy said "HRC does not have the power to seat the FL and MI delegates. Do you understand that?"
Do you understand that this is not about delegates, it's about honesty and integrity?
Do you undertand that voting for the Iraq War was not about one vote, it was about a clear lack of honesty, integrety and sound judgment?
Do you understand that many Americans want a president who doesn't lie, not more Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton?
Do you understand that, Noboy, or are you content to let the Clintons damage the Demcractic party, the democratic process and the nation for their own personal gain?
random wrote on January 25, 2008 7:29 PM:I want a president who is honest and that is not Mrs. Bill Clinton.
ds wrote on January 25, 2008 7:31 PM:I don't understand how anyone could seriously say that this latest move by Hillary is intended to enfranchise voters.
With tactics like these, Hillary is alienating so many people that a lot of the standard assumptions about an election could unravel before Nov. '08.
If she continues playing dirty like this and becomes the nominee, I wouldn't be shocked if there are massive write-ins for Obama or even Al Gore which could dwarf Nader's effects on 2000.
I am one of thousands if not millions of registered Democrats who has been repeatedly feeling that it could very well be impossible for me to vote for Hillary. It seems a lot of others have already made up their minds never to vote for her.
wglad wrote on January 25, 2008 7:36 PM:Nobody pledged not to seat the FL and MI delegations at the convention. They only pledged not to campaign in FL and MI. The only candidate who has broken that pledge is Mr. Obama, but he has an explanation for that. As someone who canvasses in the general election, I'd rather be canvassing for Mr. Obama in Benton Harbor, but I'll canvass for Mrs. Clinton there and across the river if she gets the nomination. I know a lot of the people talking trash here, especially trash about the Clintons, are not Progressive Democrats or any other kind of Democrats. I tune them out by imagining how horrible it would be to hear Barbara Ann played at the inauguration.
Henry writes "Hillary haters are bunch of cowardly pussies."
Interesting. Perhaps you should start a 527 group with a slogan whose initials spell out PUSSIES.
NoBoy wrote on January 25, 2008 7:40 PM:Anonymous: HRC has not violated her agreement on MI and FL. She hasn't and you saying she has is a LIE.
Further, everyone has always known there will be an accommodation at the convention, one that Obama will be a party to.
Will that make him dishonest? Will it impugn his integrity? Of course not.
The unbearable sanctimony of "progressives" brought us Nader and thus Bush. Spare me, OK?
As others have noted, Obama recently began to run campaign ads in Florida contrary to his pledge. That Hillary now one-ups him is good and any complaint otherwise is sour grapes. Obama loses this round.
BTW, all of this 'I don't like politics this way, I don't want any part of this devisive, win-at-all-costs campaign'. Okay, do you prefer the alternative where we have such a wimpish, afraid of their own shadow and upsetting folks group of Democrats as we have in Congress now that are afraid to pull funding from Bush's war and are afraid to start overdue impeachment?
We need Hillary and Bill back in the White House. Clinton wasn't afraid to even let the Republicans shut down government in his battle over his policies. I'm really tired of the whining and sniveling 'let's not pay rough or offend anyone, nor take a risk' politics.
I trust that Clinton will take action and make hard decisions. Obama hasn't shown the same--can't even explain his present votes or 'wrong' votes except 'I goofed.'
Finally, Rove and Bush won because they played politics better than the Democrats. Obama and you supporters of him are proving to be second best in this. Hillary is not a loser and won't shrink from a fight. She will clearly play and beat the Republicans at their own game. Yes, as I wrote, I think only she can win this election. (I haven't heard anyone suggest otherwise--all I hear is whining, not that he will likewise play hardball. In fact, all the whinning is to support his NOT playing hardball to win. How pathetic for him and the party.)
wglad wrote on January 25, 2008 7:43 PM:ROFL, Noboy
blackstar wrote on January 25, 2008 7:45 PM:As others have noted, Obama recently began to run campaign ads in Florida contrary to his pledge. That Hillary now one-ups him is good and any complaint otherwise is sour grapes. Obama loses this round.
-----------------
pay attention, dolt, as you evidently have not been so far.
Obama has run NATIONAL ads that have also ran in Florida, as it was not possible for him to run a national ad that NOT run in Florida, according to the networks who carried the ad. Clinton's national ads run in Florida as well.
this is not the same thing as "running an ad in Florida contrary to their pledge", and neither of them should be faulted for it.
blah wrote on January 25, 2008 7:47 PM:"The unbearable sanctimony of "progressives" brought us Nader and thus Bush."
No, the lack of a candidate who would stand up to corporatocracy brought you Nader and thus Bush.
wglad wrote on January 25, 2008 7:48 PM:Goodness. Someone needs a nap. I haven't heard anyone say Mrs. Clinton's ads are running in Florida. Source?
Barron wrote on January 25, 2008 7:52 PM:You want to talk about lying. Obama has been lying about his relationship with Rezko for months. Why is he not being called all of these vile names like Hillary is? He lied about how much money he received, he lied about how much work he has done with the guy, he lied about not knowing Rezko was under investigation when he purchased his house. This is the same guy who said he hit the wrong button at least 5 times (what an idiot) when voting in the Illinois senate. That's mister i'm perfect and I want to bring change, but don't ask me how I will get the country back on track.
adyacent wrote on January 25, 2008 7:55 PM:You know, these guys might be crooks, but they are good ones. They know that this is not going to fly, the party can change the rules now. But this is going to stay over the weekend, and is going to distract people from a meaningful SC victory from Obama with a meaningless squabble over Florida.
Dawn wrote on January 25, 2008 8:07 PM:I can imagine the outrage at the convention and in these comments if the shoe was on the other foot and Hillary were to win the nomination by refusing to let FL and MI delegates be seated. You know what we wold have heard - how ROVIAN of her!!!!
Last Friday night Obama supporters were going ballistic because Bill Clinton was not in favor of letting some union members have caucus sites at their work place, because others did not get that same convenience. I remember the words 'he's trying to have them disenfranchised' were thrown about rather loosely, though no one would have been denied the right to caucus in their own precinct.
Now Hillary is asking for every vote to count and Obama is not for it. Why? Because he hasn't been able to come here to Florida and give some great speeches, and has to rely on the impression people have gotten from his debate performances and free media. Oh, and his paid TV ad that he is running here, against the pledge they all took not to campaign. Ironic, isn't it?
Dawn wrote on January 25, 2008 8:15 PM:Sorry blackstar, Clinton has not run national ads. She may now, since Obama has, thus negating their pledge not to run ads in Florida.
the 'I had to run them in FL because I got a national ad buy' excuse is pretty lame. Who said he had to get a national ad buy?
I personally think the whole thing was stupid from the start. Let them all buy ads and campaign, and count all the votes. This whole "Iowa and NH have to go first" thing is ridiculous.
Mike timmons wrote on January 25, 2008 8:18 PM:If it talks like a Republican(supported the war wholesale)..........
And campaigns like a Republican(disenfranchisement and identity politics)...
But is in the Democratic Party. It must be Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton, who if she was not married to an ex-president, or if she was not female, would be laughed out of this presidential race. She is Chris Dodd without the experience, Bill Richardson without the resume.
She is nothing without the feminist bloc and Bill.
Dawn wrote on January 25, 2008 8:35 PM:She is nothing without the feminist bloc and Bill.
HA! Thats a good one. What Dem candidate in the last 30 years would have been anything without the feminist block? Bill has been pretty darn good for Dems running for office as well.
Bye Bye Democrats wrote on January 25, 2008 8:37 PM:So what do you think guys?
Do we put principle before party?
I am a lifelong Democrat, and I have voted for Democrats every election, but there will be no kumbayah if Hillary is our nominee.
These people are just FOUL, and this is a wake up call. I voted for them twice before, holding my nose, but I won't make that mistake again. If they think I will just vote for them as a tonic for the last 8 years of Republican brand corruption, they are very sorely mistaken.
I would rather send a message that Democrats should vote for principled leaders rather than corrupt politicians. And if they don't, they lose. If the Clintons win the nomination, that is the message I will send in November.
I am willing to put my principles above my party.
Are you?
Dawn wrote on January 25, 2008 8:42 PM:If Obama wins the nomination, I will put my country before anything else and vote for him over the warmongering, constitution-shredding Republicans.
Too bad he is incapable of leading his supporters to do the same thing if Clinton is the nominee.
I guess you will enjoy the Romney administration.
loki wrote on January 25, 2008 8:44 PM:I'm starting to wonder whether Josh and the gang are actually familiar with American politics. This woe is me and oh aren't they so mean mindset really seems naive.
Where have you all been the last 25...shit, 50 years?! This is nothing!
Clintons Are Cheesy Scrabble Cheaters wrote on January 25, 2008 8:47 PM:Man, the Clintons are like those cheesy people who try to cheat at Scrabble.
"ABD is a word! It is! It is, uh, a Latin Acronym of a Medical Term, uh ... it's in the rules, it's how we always played it in Arkansas, uh .."
They are just so craven and desperate, pulling rules straight out of their butts in pursuit of any advantage, whether its honest or dishonest.
I don't think it ever occurs to them to win by ... actually putting down good words.
No votes for them.
Liam wrote on January 25, 2008 8:50 PM:The Clintons will do and say anything to win. They think that rules and agreements only apply to all others, but they are free to cheat on what they have agreed to.
Leopards and Clintons do not change their spots.
Bill cheated on his marriage, every chance he got, and Hillary did nothing about it, and now we know why. She is just as big a lying cheater as Bimbo Eruptions Bill.
They deserve each other, but the nation deserves better than having that pair of habitual cheeps calling the shots for the next four years.
Enough is enough. Only a dysfunctional, self loathing nation would opt for more of the same old Clinton pretzel morality.
We know that the Clintons have no moral core, but that does not mean that you have to validate their perverse words and deeds.
DaddyD wrote on January 25, 2008 8:52 PM:Dawn and others are making some pretty weak one-sided arguments for HRC.
Look, the bottom line is this: the three candidates have agreed to support the party in it's right to manage when state party organizations may have their primaries. They all said they wouldn't campaign there. HRC got weasely and left her name on the Michigan ballot, and easily got more votes because of it.
Then, HRC sees she's way ahead in FLA, and decides to break her agreements for political gains.
What makes you think she won't do more of that later. Everything she promises now must have an asterisk:
End the war in Iraq*
Healthcare reform*
represent you*
* unless I decide later that I have more to gain by not doing it.
Hmmm... that's powerful leadership for ya.
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 8:57 PM:Wow--Billary trying to litigate themselves back into the White House!
Wow--what a shocker!
Wow--do you actually think she's going to win in November??
DaddyD wrote on January 25, 2008 9:06 PM:Bret wrote on January 25, 2008 4:30 PM:
"Clinton was not the only name on the Michigan ballot. It is not her fault that Edwards and Obama pulled their names off. They did however ask their supporters to vote uncommitted to try and embarrass Hillary. She still got over 50% of the vote. Does anyone think that she would not have won even if their names had been on the ballot? 80% of the blacks voted uncommitted for Obama. She still won. So please stop acting like she won by default. She will win Florida too. What will be the excuse then?"
Bret, this is too easy. The voters in MI & FLA want their votes to be counted, so anyone who overtly (FLA) or covertly (MI) supports their point of view will get the primary votes.
Maybe you disagree with the DNC decision, and that's fine. Some good arguments can be made that the party should've allowed the delegates to be counted (and there are good arguments for why not too). But, in the end, the candidates agreed to abide by the DNC decision, and only now, when it becomes apparent that HRC doesn't have a lock on a nomination by Feb. 5, does she suddenly "hear" the voters.
Yeah, she "hears" a lot of things lately it seems. I think she even heard Obama say he likes Republican policies, when, in fact, he didn't say or imply anything of the sort.
Save the dirty tricks for the general, HRC.
little ole jim wrote on January 25, 2008 9:20 PM:Why is there so much outrage in so many of these comments? You should be outraged when you know what you are talking about.
Michigan I don't know about.
But Florida? All of the candidates are on the ballot here in Florida, there is no advantage. As an active Democrat, I know we have been told all along that our Florida delegates will probably count. You want to disenfranchise us?
The Republican dominated state legislature of Florida is responsible for moving our primary up to January 29. So, you want to reward them by punishing Florida Democrats?
The Florida votes should count. It’s a true primary, not a caucus. Every candidate is on the ballot. Florida Democrats are not responsible for advancing the primary date. The DNC is should work things out with Florida Democrats, not simply discount our votes.
The DNC's position is that the presumptive nominee at the convention will have the choice of deciding, by getting asking their delegates to support, seating the FL and MI delegates. It would have been a gesture of unity for the delegates to seat the other delegates, even if the delegates were not all for that candidate.
It is not a dirty trick to say now that you are all for seating all the delegates. Shrewd political move, sure. But there is nothing dirty about it.
Obama can counter it, as he is, by standing up for...what is it exactly? No one but HIM is breaking the pledge not to campaign in those states.
Hillary Clinton wrote on January 25, 2008 9:42 PM:Hello Supporters! Yes, I will win at all cost including telling everyone in New Hampshire and Iowa that I do not support MI and Fl decisions. I tricked them again! Thanks for the votes you stupid NH people. Am I smart or what.....got to go, Bill is chasing the maid around with a cigar.
marc wrote on January 25, 2008 9:52 PM:The real reason why Clinton is arguing for delegates of FL and MI to be seated is because she wants to gavanize the FL voters. By stating that their Obama and Edwards does not want their votes to count, Hillary would therefor gets the angry votes from FL voters. Hillary will win by a landslide therefor taking the glory and momentum to super tuesday. After she wins she'll go back and agree that FL votes should not count.
Hillary is EVIL!!!!!! I want the best candidate, not the one that c